Information for "User talk:Psephomancy/CW vs UW"

Basic information

Display titleUser talk:Psephomancy/CW vs UW
Default sort keyPsephomancy/CW vs UW
Page length (in bytes)934
Namespace ID3
Page ID2160
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page0
Number of subpages of this page0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects)

Page protection

EditAllow all users (infinite)
MoveAllow all users (infinite)
DeleteAllow all users (infinite)
View the protection log for this page.

Edit history

Page creatorBetterVotingAdvocacy (talk | contribs)
Date of page creation05:07, 30 March 2020
Latest editorBetterVotingAdvocacy (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit05:07, 30 March 2020
Total number of edits1
Recent number of edits (within past 180 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

SEO properties



Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
I think it'd be interesting in general for other users to be able to maybe add a "discussion" section to the bottom of talk pages in order to discuss, criticize, support, or just otherwise contribute to a user's talk page. I think the rule around such an idea should be that the added section should be right at the bottom of the talk page, so as not to interfere with the user's intentions, and to clearly indicate that another user is writing most of it, rather than it being made by the original user. For example, for this article, I'd like to say "Many Condorcet advocates would likely counter that voters with weak preferences would most likely equally rank the similar candidates, greatly increasing the odds that the CW will be high-utility and satisfying to as many voters as possible relative to the UW." BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Information from Extension:WikiSEO